If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Does Kerry Still Think Assassination Of The President And V.P. Is Funny?

Sen. John Kerry has a long and dubious record in foreign policy.

In the 1970's, he testified against his fellow Vietnam War veterans before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He charged that they were violating the Geneva Conventions every day in Vietnam. Some POWs were outraged at Kerry's disloyal statements. They said they had been tortured by their Communist captors trying to force them to make such untrue statements.

Worse, Kerry went to Paris in 1971. There, he met with North Vietnamese Communists. We need to see all his notes from those meetings. Any negotiation between a private U.S. citizen and a foreign power is illegal. It violates the Logan Act of 1798. >>>

In the 1980s, Kerry campaigned for the Nuclear Freeze. The Soviet KGB, we now know, was a major funder and promoter of this disastrous idea. >>> Freezeniks thought that the only thing we should do in response to aggressive Soviet placement of SS-19 and SS-20 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in Eastern Europe was to freeze the West into no response.

Then, there is his appalling joke when President George H.W. Bush was elected. He said the Secret Service has instructions, if anything happens to President Bush--"to shoot Dan Quayle." >>>

Question 1: Does Sen. Kerry think assassination of the President and Vice President is funny?

Question 2: If John Q. or Jane Q Public makes a joke about murder of the President and Vice President, they get a visit from the Secret Service; why does a United States Senator like Kerry get away with it?

>>> He has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue since 1972. Aren't his failures over four decades something his colleagues should worry about?

When Kerry testified before congress, alleging pervasive war crimes, he was speaking as a witness to those crimes while on active duty. During the time that he allegedly observed these crimes, he was a serving officer, subject to UCMJ. Among the punitive articles that he was subject to are the following:

Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation

All of that talk about cutting off ears and killing civilians? The UCMJ and just about every regulation that there is bans murder and mutilation. If Kerry participated in these acts, then he's guilty, and there's no statute of limitations on murder. If he only observed these acts, but failed to do anything about them, then we move on to:

As an officer, Kerry had a duty to report violations of the UCMJ to his chain of command. Can he produce a record of his reports of the crimes that he claims to have observed? If not, then he permitted these actions and is responsible, both for the actions themselves and the failure to report them. Which also means that his AARs, which did not include these acts, but which highlighted his own heroism, are subject to:

Article 107—False official statements

For that matter, Kerry's Purple Hearts and citations may also be subject to this article, and if his statements to the congress turn out to have been false, then there's:

Article 131—Perjury

Democrats don't seem to mind perjury very much. But it's still illegal. And, given Kerry's meetings with the North Vietnamese while on active duty, there's another critical article to which he was subject:

Article 133—Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman

This article gets a lot of talk, but it has a very specific meaning, namely "...action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer. There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty."